Freakonomics Poll: Should Being a Parent Require a License?

Toward the end of our latest Freakonomics Radio podcast, “The Economist’s Guide to Parenting,” Steve Levitt points to the loads of social science research demonstrating that the one sure-fire way to have a bad life, is to have a mother who doesn’t love you. Which brings him to a rather radical point: should parenting be licensed? Here’s a bit from the transcript:

LEVITT:There’s a lot of research on un-wantedness and tremendous historical data sets from social science of the last fifty years that suggest that if your mother doesn’t love you, nothing good will happen to you in life. The lowest common denominator for having a kid who turns out well is the kid being loved. And if I were president for a day, maybe dictator for a day, one of the first things that I might do would be to make it harder to be a parent, to make the standards for being a parent more difficult. You should have to demonstrate some proficiency at parenting perhaps to be a parent.

DUBNER: So, you need to get licensed, let’s say?

LEVITT: Yeah. I mean, we make people prove they can parallel park before they can get a driver’s license, maybe we should make people prove that they can interact in a productive way in teaching their kid. Now there’s nothing more un-American than intervening in the family. People just hate the idea of big government looking over their shoulder and telling them how to be parents.

DUBNER: And you’re not a big government guy by any stretch.

LEVITT: No, I hate big government. But on the other hand, I could imagine there being a sensible set of things that you would want to do to make sure that people were ready to be better parents.

We thought we’d put the question to our readers with a Freakonomics Poll.

Should You Have to Get a License to be a Parent?

Yes, if you need a license to drive, you should need a license to raise a child.

COMMENTS: 138

While love is a wonderful essential, I believe, to being a good parent, it is too abstract and non-measurable to be of any use in making reproductive determinations. However, there are several quite measurable requirements that would serve.

Very simply (and this may require implanted contraception), you can’t have a baby unless FOUR THINGS have taken place:

1) The parents-to-be must have completed high school.
2) The parents-to-be must both be at least 25-years-old.
3) Neither parent must have been on gov’t assistance for the last year.
4) They parents must be married to each other.

Each of these is based on various studies. We know, for instance, that girls that have completed high school and waited until age 25 to have children tend to have better outcomes for their children.

We know (not from a study, but from commonsense) that parents on gov’t assistance not only will up the need for assistance, but are likely not in the best situation to have children, or provide their children with a solid environment.

Lastly, we know that illegitimacy is a definite marker for drug abuse, criminal activity, and illiteracy. Marriage alone doesn’t mean these things will not take place, but the odds are much more favorable.

There will likely always be those who would find a way around such requirements, but if we even got 70% acceptance, it would likely tilt the balance. That being said, I was born on my mother’s 23rd birthday…into the most loving home imaginable.

I never took the suggestion literally – even when Keanu Reeves suggested it in _Parenthood._

Literally requiring a “government license” is something any reasonable liberty loving individual should oppose but the underlying goal: preventing unsuitable parents is completely understandable. Unfortunately there is always that “road to hell” and its “good intentions” to consider…

As Levitt loves for someone to change the question or look at it differently, how about we instead ask “If people must pass a variable set of tests/interviews to become adoptive parents (and for that matter, dogs), should people pass these same requirements to be a natural parent?”

I have an adopted cousin and after hearing about the battery of test like questions/interviews the parents had to go through to be considered, maybe this should be implemented for would-be parents. I mentioned “dogs” in the above question because I recently wanted a dog and decided against adopting simply because of the lengthy, drawn out, what I think to be ridiculous process to be “approved” to own a dog. I understand shelters and other agencies want to ensure a dog or any animal for that matter is placed in a great home. (I found a breeder and got my dachshund there and am pretty sure she is quite happy with her new home). Anyway, I propose a better argument may be this rather than simply stating that if we need a driver’s license then maybe we should require a parenting license. I agree whole heatedly that children are at the mercy of the home in which they are raised. I have not thought out a way in which this method would be implemented, but I’m hoping I’ll get some feedback from other viewers.